Main Discussion Area > English Warbow

What is "Warbow"

<< < (10/30) > >>

duffontap:
Kviljo,

What I was saying was, if you believe you have a legitimate English Warbow that is different than the Mary Rose bows, prove that it is legitimate with textual evidence or historical artwork.  We know that bows made to the Mary Rose specs are true English Warbows because the Mary Rose bows prove it.  I am not interested in letting the definition of 'English Warbow' get totally watered-down by assuming that the English 'must have' used various styles of warbows.  Speculation is worth nothing in historical research.  We have more than the Mary Rose bows to show that the MR style warbow was standard in England.  Iconic and textual evidence support it as well.  People make the mistake of thinking the MR bows are the only evidence we have--that's not true.

I'm not saying the bows have to be Yew--we have lots of textual evidence that white woods were used. 

            J. D. Duff

Kviljo:
Steve:
Absolutely, MR bow are warbows, but warbows were probably more than MR bows. :)  So I wouldn't use the warbow-term too strictly.

For MR-bows, I would suggest that we cant make the artefacts, so we would have to call them replicas. And that implies millimeter-accuracy. All others would just be inspired by the artefacts at some level.

What kind of tool is a float? If you got the time, I guess it's not just me who would love to see even more :)


JD:
I agree. All I'm suggesting is that the EWB has gone through some evolution, and that the MR-bows does not reflect all warbows that has been used by the english :)
So lenghtwise and powerwise and other minor variations should not be sneered upon as totally incorrect. That is if you call your bow a warbow, not a MR-bow.

I think we have seen some examples of white-wood bows beeing made with a similar width as the MR-bows, with quite substantial draw-weights, so I would definitely not suggest that for example flatbows have been used.

D. Tiller:
I have to agree with Kviljo. We just dont know for certain what was used earlier in time. I believe weights had to progressivly increase with time. This would be the old armor vs projectile race. Better armor over time means heavier bows. So I dont think we should limit ourselves to draw weights as a determining factor in what constitutes a warbow. Things which probably varied over time, to culmination in the Mary Rose Warbows, were likly to be weight of draw, overall length of bow, length of draw, and handle placement being offset from center line or not. But I think the rounded belly and basic width of the bow and overall outline of the warbow would likly remain the same.

Overall the warbow is really a pretty simple design for a bow compared to others found arround the world. The same basic shape has been found throughout Europe, Africa and the Americas throughout time. Its quick to make when the wood is of high quality and straight of grain. Casts an arrow efficiently with long draw lengths. Because of its ease in manufacture it would be a bow easly mass produced to put in the hands of numerous archers about to head to war. Its simple, robust, uncomplicated and just plain fits the neads of the people who used them. I LIKE IT!!!  ;D

marvin:
Well said J.D.

So based on actual evidence the basic design characteristics of an English War Bow would be the following?

1) Typically over 90# draw weight with many well over 100# being drawn 30" to 32"?
2) The bow bends throughout it's entire length?
3) It is typically a single stave but there are examples of backing being used?
4) Yew was the wood of choice but there were examples of other woods like elm being used?
5) The cross section was oval/rounded. Not a high stacked belly or a flat back right?

Help me nail this down. Bring facts and evidence to the table.

outcaste:
Hi Marvin,

There is evidence of squarish section bows, these being arguably the heavier draw weights.

Due to character of staves some bows might not draw full compass being a little stiff in the handle

Not sure if any backed bows were found on the MR though they were certainly backed later due to lack of good wood
 

Cheers, Outcaste

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page

Go to full version